If I’d known you could get away with this kind of exercise in academia I might have tried a little harder to stay between the ivied walls.  I don’t know if I’m more impressed with the fact that the author of the paper could get credit for exploring the implications of the f-bomb or that he could get away with a four letter title: Fuc- (I’ll let you guess the fourth letter).  Following is the abstract for the piece (please note that since this a family blog and I never cuss I’ve edited out the offending word…okay, I admit it’s just because I don’t want to get inundated with a bunch of porn related comment spam):

Abstract:     

This Article is as simple and provocative as its title suggests: it
explores the legal implications of the word f—. The intersection of
the word f— and the law is examined in four major areas: First
Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education. The
legal implications from the use of f— vary greatly with the context.
To fully understand the legal power of f—, the nonlegal sources of
its power are tapped. Drawing upon the research of etymologists,
linguists, lexicographers, psychoanalysts, and other social scientists,
the visceral reaction to f— can be explained by cultural taboo. F—
is a taboo word. The taboo is so strong that it compels many to engage
in self-censorship. This process of silence then enables small segments
of the population to manipulate our rights under the guise of
reflecting a greater community. Taboo is then institutionalized through
law, yet at the same time is in tension with other identifiable legal
rights. Understanding this relationship between law and taboo
ultimately yields f— jurisprudence.

Who knew you could write a sentence that ends with the phrase “f— jurispudence”?